User talk:Spring3390

Hello, Spring3390. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

See wikt:innovationism. And "개혁주의" as "혁신주의" is different from "reformism". --Garam (talk) 15:08, 5 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

"Innovationism" is not a political ideology, this is your original research Spring3390 (talk) 03:42, 10 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Please read WP:OR again. The term "innovationism" is not OR, and it is a political ideology. --Garam (talk) 16:02, 11 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

• Face palm* show me a single instance of "innovationism" being presented as a political ideology by a -established, i.e. has a national representation- political party. Spring3390 (talk) 20:37, 11 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

There is the Korean saying that goes, "if you don't know something, look it up yourself". Please look for it in Google yourself: #1, #2 etc. --Garam (talk) 07:29, 12 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

The first example is being used in the broadest sense, i.e. is in favor of innovation, that doesn't mean anything, define "innovation", and it is not even talking about it as a political ideology, more of a broader societal position. On the second one, dunno about you, but I'm pretty sure the author of the book -Turkish- is literally using "Innovationism" interchangeably with "Reformism" because Recep Tayyip Erdogan in early 2000s -well, and now- was not exactly an "innovationist" in a sense you are defining. Spring3390 (talk) 07:37, 12 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

PLEASE look for more information about it in google YOURSELF. #3, #4 etc. --Garam (talk) 07:41, 12 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

"No results found in this book for innovationism" some research skill you've got there. Also, are you telling me AKP and CCP are the two parties with "Innovationsim" as their main political ideology? Because one is a moderate Islamist party, and other is a communist party, so. Spring3390 (talk) 07:45, 12 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

I don't understand your point. You said to me, "show me a single instance". So, I gave some information to you. That is all. Therefore, there is no need for any personal opinions about that term. --Garam (talk) 07:50, 12 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

There isn't a single instance. Show me a manifesto or something. Literally, every example you've given is a) Not about political ideology b) Written by a non-English speaker, c) doesn't actually mention any instance of "innovationism" in the text. Gotta do better than that. Spring3390 (talk) 08:20, 12 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

1) It is about political ideology 2) It is written in English. 3) It is actually mention about "innovationism". Please stop being stubborn. --Garam (talk) 08:28, 12 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Fist book you cited is about post-secular society and adaptation of religion within said society, literally nothing to do with political ideology or party politics. The second book is written by non-english speaker and clearly used "innovationism" and "reformism" interchangeably. The third and Fourth book, there isn't any instance of "innovationism" in the text. This is embarrassing. Spring3390 (talk) 08:34, 12 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Ha? What? "there isn't any instance of "innovationism" in the text"? PLEASE read the texts again. --Garam (talk) 15:15, 12 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Your recent edits could give Wikipedia contributors the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that making such threats on Wikipedia is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. If you have a dispute with the content of any page on Wikipedia, please follow the proper channels for dispute resolution. Please be sure to comment on content, not contributors, and where possible make specific suggestions for changes supported by reliable independent sources and focusing especially on verifiable errors of fact. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Veritas et aequitas Korea (talk • contribs) 05:10, 18 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Instead of edit warring and offering legal threats, the correct recourse is to report at WP:BLPN. Thanks, --Dlohcierekim (talk) 06:10, 18 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Veritas et aequitas Korea has already been reported at WP:BLPN prior. Pyo Chang-won is an active politician in South Korea and has been a target of politically motivated defamation. Veritas et aequitas Korea's edit is prosecutable under Korean law, and there are precedents [1]. Again, unless the page is cleaned up and defamatory materials removed, I'll have no choice but to report the page to the relevant authority. Thanks. Spring3390 (talk) 23:42, 18 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

The relevant authority-- is WP:AN/I, per WP:TOS. You are treading perilously close to being blocked form violating WP:NLT.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 01:49, 19 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

The relevant discussion is at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Legal_threat_by_User_talk:Spring3390_on_the_article_Pyo_Chang-won.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 01:52, 19 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Like I said. The "relevant authority " is WP:AN/I. If you'd calmly voiced your concerns there, you'd have gotten better results without getting blocked. If you choose to withdraw your legal threat, you can request unblock.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:44, 19 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making legal threats or taking legal action.

You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 02:01, 19 March 2018 (UTC)Reply